The picture is great, with a very interesting set of perspectives, but there's something muddy about the overall tones that I don't like. It could well be that that's how nature had them, but were it mine, I'd ignore nature and brighten it all up a tad.

Nice, I like the similarity in hue between elements of the foreground stump and the sodium (?) lights in the distance.

It feels like a bit of a gimmick, the radical version of the "near/far relationship" trope, but what a gimmick! It's a fine and interesting image that rewards a closer examination, and that's an excellent thing.

The foreground stump barely needs the second one, let alone the distant city lights. I can see a role for the foreground stamp and the city lights, even for the two stumps perhaps, but just piling up interesting elements does not necessarily result in an interesting photograph.

Slobodan, I think the photo is really about the foreground stump and the city lights, with the related hues and contrasting ideas.

The middle distance stump.. well, it's THERE and if you've ever tried removing a stump you know it's a job and a half! I happen to think it balances the frame nicely, fitting into the crook for the foreground stump nicely and filling what would otherwise be too much negative space (I think -- I haven't got one of those fancy context aware fill things to check). Also, it conceals the lights a little more, which is a good thing I think. The lights need to be there, but subtly.

That's my take on it. The actual photographer is probably thinking 'what a pile of ...' right now!

... if you've ever tried removing a stump you know it's a job and a half!... I haven't got one of those fancy context aware fill things to check...

Again, what happened with pre-Photoshop tools? You know, old-fashioned hardware tools like sandals, shoes, even barefoot... all that can help you move a bit to the left or right. Simplicity should be first sought in viewfinder, then, and only then, perhaps enhanced in PS.